Player in prime w/untapped potential vs. declining, although still productive player.

Osi can also earn 3mm more in incentives as well. I actually thought it was a pretty high number for him. Clayton had said the falcons did not want to pay 4mm+/yr which is why it dragged out for a bit. Seems like they caved.

pinksheets wrote:What if Avril ends up being a great piece for this defense, potentially a replacement for Clemons if Irvin doesn't pan out?

Can you ask the same question about Osi?

That is obviously the question - which one will be more productive and if "only" spent $8.5 on Osi what else would you have done.

I am not saying the Avril signing is bad I am just questioning it and if we overvalued the market despite paying less than Avril was worth just a few months ago.

In regards to the age - I look at it much simpler than that. It is a 2 year contract and that is all that matters. The player will be a FA later and if he is fantastic on the field we probably can't afford him in 2 years considering the other contracts we will renew. The only upside of having the younger player is if you decide to franchise him. If the older player is as productive or more productive for 2 years than I take that.......

People tend to forget that we are only into Avril for a total of $6 million if we don't keep him around next year, and he's only counting $3.75 million against the cap this year. I'm not sure what Osi's contract looks like as far as how much is guaranteed, but I'd bet his cap value for this season isn't much different than Avril. We can reevaluate the situation next off season and decide if he's worth the $7 million we owe him. If he plays as well as expected, that would be a good number to have him at, and would allow for us to try to extend him if he plays well enough to deserve it. If not, we can cut him and only be on the hood for a little over $2 million. It's really a great deal from a FO perspective. It gives us a good pass rusher at a good cap value and a chance to see him in action before paying him more money next year and/or extending him in the future. With Osi, you are likely just renting a player for the short term. We have a chance at long term success here with a short term tryout. Avril FTW

kearly wrote:Supposedly Osi sucks against the run. Avril is younger, more productive over the past two years and has a lot more flexibility. He'd actually be a pretty fast linebacker when we move him there.

I would have loved to get Umenyiora at that price. Nice move for the Falcons. But I don't think it makes the Avril signing any less impressive.

Umenyiora tied for 51st in the NFL of 4-3 DEs against the run, per PFF. (Man, I'm loving the premium stats, and I only just bought it yesterday.) Bruce Irvin was next on the list at 53; Osi had a -4.8 grade against the run, Irvin -5.5. Dumervil, Chris Clemons, and Cliff Avril were all worse against the run than Bruce and Osi, though. Ouch. Clemons smoked all of the aforementioned by a huge margin in the rush ranking, though. 24.5, 4th-best of all 4-3 DEs.

Also, the entire list of 4-3 DEs for 2012 was only 62 players long. (Players that played at least 25% of snaps.)

Last edited by RolandDeschain on Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

kearly wrote:Supposedly Osi sucks against the run. Avril is younger, more productive over the past two years and has a lot more flexibility. He'd actually be a pretty fast linebacker when we move him there.

I would have loved to get Umenyiora at that price. Nice move for the Falcons. But I don't think it makes the Avril signing any less impressive.

Umenyiora tied for 51st in the NFL of 4-3 DEs against the run, per PFF. (Man, I'm loving the premium stats, and I only just bought it yesterday.) Bruce Irvin was next on the list at 53; Osi had a -4.8 grade against the run, Irvin -5.5. Dumervil, Chris Clemons, and Cliff Avril were all worse against the run than Bruce and Osi, though. Ouch. Clemons smoked all of the aforementioned by a huge margin in the rush ranking, though. 24.5, 4th-best of all 4-3 DEs.

DavidSeven wrote:Aren't Avril's numbers closer to $13m/2? I believe Osi can earn up to 12.2 with incentives.

Yes, Avril is signed for 2 years and $13 million. Of that though, only $6 million is guaranteed. If we cut him after this season, we'd only be out $6 million.

That's right. I was directing that comment more toward the OP who suggested Avril signed $15m/2 vs. Osi's $8.5m/2. Numbers are actually closer than that and I'd much rather have Avril. More upside, flexibility after 2013 and seemingly a better attitude.

CALIHAWK1 wrote:I don't care what a stat sheet says. I have eyeballs. No way is Irvin better against the run than Clemons.

How many run play snaps were they on the field for?

Clemons was on the field for significantly more, and you have to factor that into these rankings. 917 snaps total for Clemons, 533 snaps for Irvin. This includes the playoffs, by the way. It must have been very close to twice as many snaps for Clemons during the regular season. Clemons isn't good against the run. He's not horrible, but he has never been more than an afterthought to our run defense; and frankly, almost the entire time he has been a Seahawk, we've had a very good base run defense with him only working on rushing the passer. We saw Bruce get shell-shocked the first time he was a "most downs" pass rusher. (@ Atlanta.) I think this might make more sense if you see how they were graded on a per-game basis against the run.

Clemons was a more dramatic player against the run, (higher highs, lower lows) but Irvin was very middle-of-the-pack, grading out at 0 or within a half-point of 0 almost every week. (Talking about run defense only.)

I'll send you a couple of screenshots, I don't want to post the whole things here. Check your PMs, I just sent them. Take a look at the weekly grades of both, and then reply here. I'm curious to see what you think. Clemons probably played ten times as many run play snaps as Irvin, if not more. Irvin was on the field almost only in obvious passing down situations. He likely would have graded more poorly on it than Clemons if he had seen as many run plays, but that doesn't mean the grade is wrong. Like all stats, you have to know what you're looking at. Not just see numbers.

Correct, he got his $4.5 million when he signed the deal and he gets his $1.5 million in game checks over the year. That's his $6 million. Next year's $7 million isn't guaranteed at all, and if he underperforms, we can opt out then without taking too much of a hit. If he performs very well, we can keep him for one more year and if he performs beyond expectations we can then discuss extending him.

DavidSeven wrote:Aren't Avril's numbers closer to $13m/2? I believe Osi can earn up to 12.2 with incentives.

Yes, Avril is signed for 2 years and $13 million. Of that though, only $6 million is guaranteed. If we cut him after this season, we'd only be out $6 million.

That's right. I was directing that comment more toward the OP who suggested Avril signed $15m/2 vs. Osi's $8.5m/2. Numbers are actually closer than that and I'd much rather have Avril. More upside, flexibility after 2013 and seemingly a better attitude.

Good point thanks for correcting y numbers. Depending on where incentives are set the numbers are closer / not. If they are you know 20 sacks to get to $12.2Million then I would say that they are still quite a bit different.....

mikeak wrote:Good point thanks for correcting y numbers. Depending on where incentives are set the numbers are closer / not. If they are you know 20 sacks to get to $12.2Million then I would say that they are still quite a bit different.....

but you are looking at two year totals. What you should do is wait to see what Osi's contract looks like. What's really important here is what is he costing the team if they were to only keep him on a one year deal and cut him after this season. This is a better assessment IMO, because it shows you what you are investing in someone before they earn in on the field for you. Both guys have earned their paydays with other teams, but have earned nothing with their current teams. The first year is crucial in a two year deal, because if they don't work out like you'd hoped, you set them free and don't pay out the 2nd year.